(described e.g. in a publication entitled Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzencyjnych w nauce, which is available on the website of Higher Education (MNiSW): www.nauka.gov.pl)

1.

Submitted articles are processed to a preliminary assessment by the Editorial Board.

2.

Texts originally accepted for publication will be submitted to two independent reviewers (texts in a foreign language are sent to at least one reviewer, affiliated with a foreign institution other than the nationality of the author).

3.

Reviewers are not affiliated with the same institution from which are they, and are not in business with the author, do not remain with the author in a conflict of interest or a close personal relations, also not remain in a direct scientific cooperation over the past two years prior to preparing the review of text.

4.

Reviewers are not members of the Scientific Council and are competent in the specific field and have appropriate academic achievements.

5.

Editors applying the principle of double blind review, controls that reviewers and authors do not know their identity.

6.

When a group of specialists in the field is too narrow to preserve the principle set out in paragraph no. 3, may occur the exception to this rule.

7.

Editors leaves discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject the text of the review to reviewers.

8.

Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality until publication of the reviewed text.

9.

A standard form of a review can be found on the website www.bohemistyka.pl in a tab Procedure of reviewing.

10.

Reviewer passes to the editors review prepared in an electronic form and on a paper with handwritten signature, which is stored in the newsroom for a period of two years. Review should end with an explicit request for release or not of an article for publication.

11.

Editors will not accept reviews that do not comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of peer review and is not compatible with the sent design review.

12.

Submitted reviewer comments are sent to the author of text, who must take into account the recommendations of reviewers to improve the text. However, reviewers are entitled to re-examine the revised text.

13.

If the author does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer, he has the right to respond to them. Then decision to publish the text will be taken by the Editor with the support of the members of the Scientific Council on the basis of observations and conclusions contained in the review, along with any answers by the author of text and final version of that text provided by the author.

14.

Reviews of articles are made free of charge by following a previously used custom.

15.

Rejected articles by the reviewers are archived in the editorial for a period of two years.

16.

One a year the editors publish on a paper, and continuously on a website, an updated full list of reviewers, with whom the editors work.

REVIEW FORM

No.

Evaluation criteria

Yes

No

Rating(1-5)

Remarks

1.

Does the title of article correspond to its content?

2.

Does volume of article correspond to the rank of its contents?

3.

Is the composition of the article correct?

4.

Does the article bring fresh elements to the Science?

5.

Did author used a correct method?

6.

Was literature properly selected and quoted?

7.

Are illustrative materials (e.g. tables, figures) associated in a logical way with the article?

8.

Does the language of the article meet the correct criteria used in scientific statements?